Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellant won a public auction for a Delhi plot at Rs.3.12 crore and paid 25% as earnest money, but could not pay the remaining 75% on time due to an industry-wide recession. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) itself repeatedly extended the payment deadline over several years through two High-Powered Committees, and in 1987 offered to accept the balance with 18% interest: an offer the appellant accepted the same day. Years later, with no further notice to the appellant, the DDA cancelled the allotment and forfeited the entire Rs.78 lakh earnest money, then re-auctioned the same plot for Rs.11.78 crore (nearly four times the original price).
The Supreme Court held that since the DDA itself had repeatedly extended the payment deadline and never put the appellant on fresh notice of a final deadline before cancelling the allotment, there was no breach of contract by the appellant in the first place, so forfeiture under the auction's own terms was not justified. The Court also laid down a detailed framework on Section 74 of the Contract Act, holding that forfeiture of earnest money is itself a form of "compensation for breach" and is lawful only where actual loss or damage is shown (or is a genuine pre-estimate of loss), and since the DDA ultimately profited enormously by re-selling the plot, it had suffered no loss at all, making retention of the earnest money arbitrary and impermissible, particularly since the DDA, as a State authority, is bound by Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably even in contractual matters.
A government authority cannot simply pocket forfeited earnest money as a windfall: compensation for breach of contract under Indian law requires either proof of actual loss or a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and a public body must act fairly and give proper notice before treating a long-running, mutually-extended deal as "breached."
